It’s All About the Disclosure

If a chief medical officer failed to disclose payments he received from health care companies in research articles, would you feel differently when reading those articles?

Would it change your perception on the content of his research?

Would you question his motives?

Would you think he was biased based on his employment?

Recently, this made headline news:
Top Sloan Kettering Cancer Doctor Resigns After Failing to Disclose Industry Ties.

See link for the full article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/health/jose-baselga-cancer-memorial-sloan-kettering.html

The facts:

  • The chief medical officer worked as the physician-in-chief at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
  • He did not disclose his financial ties to health care companies
  • He also failed to disclose any company affiliations in articles he published in the journal of Cancer Discovery
  • He resigned effective immediately

Relations between medical officers and health care companies is acceptable, and often encouraged in the field, it is simply about transparency.

In December of 2017, Sheldon Bradshaw, a partner at King & Spalding published an article entitled Practitioners Take Huge Risks Dealing with Rogue Compounders in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology.

Would it change your perception on the content of this article knowing that he did not disclose that his firm represents Allergan in their law suit against Prescriber’s Choice and Sincerus, FL?

Would you question his motives?

Would you think he was biased based on his employment?

There has been a slew of negative articles written about compounding. If in fact, the authors had been commissioned and paid to write these, would it change your perception on the content of the articles?  Would you question the authors’ motives?

When the term “fake news” is used on a daily basis, we all need to be aware of potential bias.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with accepting payments from companies, it only becomes unethical when the relationship is not disclosed and when the payments bias the authors’ objectivity.  Recently, Prescriber’s Choice has received questions as to why there have not been more positive news stories or accolades for the work that it does with its dermatology customers and their patients. We have found that our most successful marketing to date has been word of mouth that has spread amongst dermatologists, plastic surgeons, PAs, NPs, and estheticians.  If you, as the reader, have been positively touched in some way by the good work that we do, please continue to spread the good will and perhaps even consider publishing an article discussing the benefits of our platform. Despite the negative slant that many of these biased authors have taken, we remain steadfast in our quest to positively disrupt the pharmaceutical industry.  We thank you for your support and look forward to a bright future.